"Facebook is planning to update its" When? Is this already happened? Or is there a chance that they are not doing this?
kevin_r: So here we have a team of highly intelligent engineers work together, using the latest equipment and techniques in technology to create a very complex piece of equipment - which just so happens falls far short of the capabilities of the eye of the dragonfly.
The eye in the dragonfly is connected to an unbelievable control system which allows it to keep track of parallel flying insects and keep itself perfectly synchronized in order to fool the prey that it is not pursuing it.
So how does the dragonfly get to get it's eyes and control system together, all by the mindless, random machinations of biological mutations?
Me thinks it's a bridge too far. But then, your mileage may vary.
About the tech itself- great stuff! The possibilities for applications are almost endless.
The Copyist is/will not be more intelligent than the Maker.
This will be the year of 7:700D, 70D, 7D2
There is for sure no coicidency that this news is comming right after Aptina/Sony news.Its good to know that Canon is continue researching on sensor tehnology but the question is, will Canon use this tehnology in any other DSLR-s? And how about DR at low ISO? From my understand, this shows that Canon concentrate its research on High ISO tehnology and not in high DR at Low ISO.
I dont't get it. Why JPEG is better as RAW? This is new ...
mariuss: OK ... I think with this camera is time to remember how is it to use JPEGs. Perhaps, RAW is not "the only one choice" anymore.
More clearly, I can not. Maybe should I repeat instead?! Would this help?!"RAW is the only answer for colour, exposure and high ISO work." - and for low ISO and BW photos?! ... sarcasm out.
OK ... I think with this camera is time to remember how is it to use JPEGs. Perhaps, RAW is not "the only one choice" anymore.
pdelux: The back of the camera looks like its 10 years old. I guess style is too much to ask for @ $3K.
I look THROUGH the camera and not AT the camera. For me it could be square ... if the pictuare quality is good.
It has everything as I expected ... and even much! more.
The big questions are: How about pattern noise? And DR?If the pattern noise is eliminated and the DR is (at least) slightly better as the Mark II ... I am a very happy 'Canon' photographer.
I took a closer look at the samples from Nikon (http://www.nikon-image.com/products/camera/slr/digital/d800/sample.htm).The amount of noise is low, even in JPEG, but the sharpness is not overhelming. I wonder why, there is almost no sample above F8?! (interesting, there is a portrait one, but no landscape).
Very confindent from Nikon to match itself not even with Canon and the rest, but also with the high-end medium format.I wonder if Canon 5D (III)(X) will match at least the high ISO Performance and the DR from Nikon D800.
Apropos, vivid. Sadly I have to say that this foto is not very carefully processed.Despite the very vivid color (this is a subjective matter), the red color from the street lamp is strange indeed, don't You think?
Or maybe a BW photo in a newspaper is just cheaper to print as a color one?! Even a vivid one such a HDR?! ... I don't know if I have to declare this as a joke or not :)
I am confused.There are statements like:"The human eye only has about 6 or 7 stops of instantaneous dynamic range" and now:"While today’s digital cameras capture a much larger dynamic range in a single shot than any color transparency film ever could in the past, they still can't match the tonal range humans can see. And so, using HDR software and processing tools is the only method a photographer has to deliver precisely what he or she witnessed at the time of an image capture."Has the HDR to do with what we have in the FOV of our eyes?In FOV only 6-7 stops?Out of FOV about 20 stops?
Jonathan F/2: Wow!
I've been asking sometimes to take photos by weddings (friends, relatives etc) and ... I hate it. There is so much stress and so much responsibility. You must have everything double: cameras, lenses, flashes etc. You need an assistant too. But the worst thing is to sit on the Monitor for Hours and edit the photos. I find 20-25 Hours unrealistic unless the wedding is small (> 40 Persons) and you are very good by editing. And in the end maybe the bridal pair is not even happy with the results.So, if the photos are really good, 3000 $ is OK. "your photographs will be the only thing you have to remember that one day for the rest of your lives." - Indeed.
Because here it is not allowed to use a watermark on the photo.
Here it's larger:http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8679392&size=lg
Thank you all for your comments.